« Kitzhaber needs to make Oregon #1 in health care | Main | The Tao of leaf raking »

November 08, 2010


I plan to write on this too because I see them connected also-- evolution and the putting down of global climate science. It goes beyond this and it's where my blogs will go on it to a putting down of science period which is part of their wanting to destroy public education. Read their blogs and you see where it's all heading-- private schools for the elite and let the rest make out as best they can. That's where it's heading.

Someone sent me an email expressing skepticism about the science of global warming and suggesting that my wholehearted acceptance of the scientific consensus in this area was at odds with my equally wholehearted rejection of religious claims about reality.

I responded that actually these two "wholeheartedness'es" were entirely compatible. I made so much sense, I'll share my email reply:


They are not at all the same. 97-98% of the world's climate scientists have come to a consensus about global warming. If you look at the facts, as I do every day via Climate Progress posts (and other news), it is clear that global warming is real. The evidence is obvious. On the other hand, the evidence that Sant Mat [an Indian religious philosophy that I used to accept] is true is not. That's also clear.

Actually, I feel my attitude in both areas is consistent. Religiosity needs to be called out on its lack of evidence. Global warming deniers need to be called out for the same reason. It is very rare (maybe never) that people who claim global warming isn't happening point to peer-reviewed studies in the scientific literature. They almost always point to something on the Internet that isn't solid science.

"The Internet" recently claimed that Obama's trip to India is costing $200 million a day. That's false, yet Fox News talked as if it was true. Just because someone says something doesn't mean it is true. It's necessary to look at the facts behind the claim. Climate science is solid because it has facts to back it up. That's a fact.

Sorry if the stat that 97% of climate scientists believes something doesn't convince me. And, I'm not a "denier"—a very emotionally charged political word. I am a skeptic. And, I'm pretty consistently skeptical of anything that finds itself labeled "mainstream." Mainstream media? I'm skeptical. Mainstream medicine. I'm skeptical. Mainstream economics. I'm skeptical. Mainstream climate science. I'm just very skeptical. I like what Doug Hoffman has written: "...it is important to remember that many serious scientists believe in human caused global warming to one degree or another. But science is a human endeavor and as prone to mistakes as any other. This will not be the first time that a majority of the scientific community believed in an erroneous theory, and it certainly will not be the last. Eventually, science will decide the fate of AGW based on empirical evidence—nature itself will provide the proof, one way or the other." This statement is near the end of a long discussion about why he is skeptical. http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/why-i-am-global-warming-skeptic My point in the last skeptical piece I sent, and I don't think I was very clear, was that on "climate change" you sound very much like you used to on the subject of Sant Mat. I'm not unsympathetic as I have drunk the cool aid of certainty many times and later had to vomit it up. Maybe before I can no longer rake my leaves I'll learn to be more consistently skeptical.

Randy, if 97% of the world's leading fire prevention experts said they were highly confident your house was going to burn down in the not too distant future for reasons that they could clearly specify, wouldn't you feel that it made sense to take steps to prevent the predicted disaster?

Especially if you couldn't find any flaw in their logic and data -- which is exactly the case with global climate change.

Skeptics have not been able to refute the scientific consensus. The Earth is in danger. It makes sense to prevent the impending disaster even if it isn't 100% certain. And in the process, the U.S. will take big steps toward energy independence.

:You really need to read the scientific research with a more open mind. Every day, peruse the Climate Progress posts. I think you'll change your mind once you're exposed to the facts about global warming (a recent post pointed out that 2010 is on track to be the warmest year since temperatures started being recorded).

Where I live it has been getting progressively warmer, longer summers, more high temperatures. They used to irrigate crops from a river that is now always dry except after ultra-heavy rains.

This is normal. Climate is always changing. Indigenous tribes migrated due to drought cycles. Nevada was once under water. Frozen tropical plants have been found in Greenland and Antarctica. How many warming cycles, cooling cycles and ice ages have there been throughout the aeons without any human help?

The question is if the current climate change is PRIMARILY the result of man-made emissions in the atmosphere? Maybe. Sometimes small changes in ecosystems can be disastrous. It's possible, sure, but I think there is a lot more to it than human pollution which sucks, but amounts to about one kid pissing in a public pool. The earth is big. Solar radiation and ion streams are far more massive than factory emissions and can cause subtle shifts in magnetic fields which can alter ocean currents and thus climate.

Can we stem the tide if we all have windmills in our yards and power our homes with the methane collected from our composting toilets? If we can stop all the livestock from farting?...all the fucking 6.9 billion people from farting on average 17 times per day? Maybe we can attach little gas collectors on every creatures butt and use it for fuel instead of letting it float into the atmosphere to add to the greenhouse gases? If we shut down industry and return to simpler times? If we stop the pollution of making Prius's and instead keep old cars running and converting them to running on restaurant grease? Or go to work on roller skates?

Maybe, but I don't think anyone knows that. How CAN they know that? You aren't likely to change the ways of societies on a hypothesis.

Nevertheless, I'm all for a cleaner planet. Let's do it, but I don't think you're going to get the Chinese and Indians on board any time soon.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Strange Up Salem

Welcome to HinesSight

  • Salem Political Snark
    My local political rants are now made on this badass blog. Check it out. Dirty politics, outrageous actions, sleaze, backroom deals — we’re on it. 

  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • Church of the Churchless
    Visit my other weblog, Church of the Churchless, where the gospel of spiritual independence is preached.

  • Welcome to HinesSight. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.